tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post3664547342685803411..comments2017-12-10T23:28:55.653-06:00Comments on Schultz's Take: The case against billing protestersProfDSchultzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14428175737629801650noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-64393234675897689632017-02-06T11:20:16.642-06:002017-02-06T11:20:16.642-06:00Why would a political science professor call the U...Why would a political science professor call the United States a constitutional “democracy” when he probably knows full well it is a republic? Liberal wishful thinking?<br />In last week’s opinion article, “The case against billing protestors [The cost of democracy],” the professor/editor believes the First Amendment guarantees that costs incurred during a “peaceful breaking [of] the law” should be borne by you and me, the taxpayers. In his convoluted reasoning, he believes it is unethical and unconstitutional for them to be held accountable because protesters are not criminals, even when they perform criminal acts. Because their intent is different, there should be no culpability. <br />He further states that, “The power of civil disobedience is the willingness of individuals to face punishment for a cause.” I concur, but shouldn’t this include the costs involved with the hiring of extra police/security, cleaning up the messes made by protesters, coverage of any property damage, and (more recently) reimbursement to flyers who missed business meetings or families who lost precious time from their vacations?<br />Doesn’t this entire argument really boil down to if one believes that the protestors were “drawing attention to unjust or unconstitutional activity…?” Does mere belief or opinion entitle you to a “get out of jail free card?” Even more amusing, the author states that “The price of a free society is respecting differences of opinion.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a political science professor) to see that since the election, those who did not vote for President Trump continue to try to convince the country that the only right opinion is their opinion. <br />When I think of “ethics,” words such as morality, decency, honesty, discipline, dignity, and integrity come to mind. Is this just another word whose definition is slowly being rewritten? As I look at the selfishness of the actions of the tolerant left protestors (paid or otherwise), these words don’t jump out at me. The First Amendment does not grant rights carte blanche. <br />Rights, just as freedoms, come with responsibilities. By not enforcing laws, even with regards to our First Amendment rights, we incorrectly send a message that if you are perceived as a “righteous protestor,” you do not have to grow up, accept responsibility for your actions, and that mommy or daddy or the taxpayers will always be there to bail you out. <br />(my letter to St. Paul Pioneer Press)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00000845202818135067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8638998837390550464.post-57652036915423875252017-01-30T21:36:39.200-06:002017-01-30T21:36:39.200-06:00Great article. Thank you for bringing attention to...Great article. Thank you for bringing attention to an important topic. You may find this thread interesting, where HF322 author Nick Zerwas refuses to answer constituents about providing evidence that HF322 upholds the 1st amendment. He also refused to concede to rewriting. (He has plenty of time to make digs at Rebecca Otto though.) https://twitter.com/Rebecca_Otto/status/825822843359395841Great Than Less Thanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761468369243950615noreply@blogger.com